senado-br-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait of filtering by agreement threshold (>85%) and the utility for identifying consensus themes, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps for a tool with no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Retorna consultas com alta concordância') and adds value with the utility clause ('útil para identificar temas de consenso'). Every word earns its place, with zero waste or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (filtering consultas by agreement), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the purpose and usage context well, but lacks behavioral details like response format or error handling, which are important for a tool with no structured output documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (percentualMinimo, minimoVotos, limite) with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the default threshold of >85%, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retorna consultas com alta concordância (>85% em uma direção), útil para identificar temas de consenso.' It specifies the verb ('Retorna'), resource ('consultas'), and key criteria (>85% agreement in one direction), distinguishing it from siblings like 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_polarizadas' and 'senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas' by focusing on consensus rather than polarization or general listing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to identify consensus themes based on high agreement (>85% in one direction). It implies usage for filtering consultas by agreement level, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_polarizadas' for polarized topics, which would be needed for a score of 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.